Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (4) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-38 Mumbai has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 2,31,628/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2014-15 on 26.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 49,32,500/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 14.12.2016 assessing total income at Rs. 57,88,081/-. The same was rectified u/s 154 on 08.02.2017 revising total income at Rs. 56,82,105/-. In the assessment completed u/s 143(3) dated 14.12.2016, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that in the balance sheet, it is reflected that loans advanced totaling to Rs. 1,04,57,1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and capital of Rs. 2.63 crores. However, it is seen that the appellant has not produced any fund flow statement showing sources and application of funds. Therefore, the nexus between the unsecured loans taken and granted are not established. In view of the same, the interest expense claimed by the appellant has no nexus with the business carried on the appellant. The appellant has also not proved that the interest free loans were advanced to the aforesaid parties/persons on account of business exigencies. In the given fact and circumstances of the case, I find that the penalty levied by the AO is on sound footing. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs. 2,31,628/- levied by the AO is confirmed." 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee relie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... here the word 'inaccurate' has been defined as 'not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript', Supreme Court held that the two words i.e., 'inaccurate' and 'particulars' read in conjunction must mean that the details supplied in the return are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. It was held that mere making of a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself would not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Therefore, such claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Elaborating further, Supreme Court held that if suc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates